Small claims won then lost?
Discussion
Too long ago to put right, but I have always wondered.
Took someone to small claims court for non payment of a bill. I won the case and defendant told to pay. If no payment was given I was told to come back to court.
Nothing happened, so back we went. No real questions to either party, judge says case dismissed no further action. Looks at me and says I cannot object or even ask any more about what has gone on.
A common occurrence? or have there been some back room handshakes going on.
Took someone to small claims court for non payment of a bill. I won the case and defendant told to pay. If no payment was given I was told to come back to court.
Nothing happened, so back we went. No real questions to either party, judge says case dismissed no further action. Looks at me and says I cannot object or even ask any more about what has gone on.
A common occurrence? or have there been some back room handshakes going on.
My father took a customer to the small claims court back in the seventies for a colour TV he'd rented to him.
The customer hadn't paid but before the TV could be recovered, his rented accommodation burned down and he legged it with the insurance money.
My dad was out about £300 as they were expensive items back then.
So a day was taken off work, the customer wasn't required to be there but my dad was and judgment was suitably awarded.
All was good until dad asked how he was supposed to collect the money?
The reply was more or less, You're on your own there mate.
An Attachment Of Earnings was mentioned but if the customer switched jobs or had no job then, realistically no chance really.
Things have undoubtedly changed in the subsequent decades but he didn't have much faith then - probably even less now.
The customer hadn't paid but before the TV could be recovered, his rented accommodation burned down and he legged it with the insurance money.
My dad was out about £300 as they were expensive items back then.
So a day was taken off work, the customer wasn't required to be there but my dad was and judgment was suitably awarded.
All was good until dad asked how he was supposed to collect the money?
The reply was more or less, You're on your own there mate.
An Attachment Of Earnings was mentioned but if the customer switched jobs or had no job then, realistically no chance really.
Things have undoubtedly changed in the subsequent decades but he didn't have much faith then - probably even less now.
Firthv10 said:
Too long ago to put right, but I have always wondered.
Took someone to small claims court for non payment of a bill. I won the case and defendant told to pay. If no payment was given I was told to come back to court.
Nothing happened, so back we went. No real questions to either party, judge says case dismissed no further action. Looks at me and says I cannot object or even ask any more about what has gone on.
A common occurrence? or have there been some back room handshakes going on.
Yes, it happened exactly like that. Of course it did. Took someone to small claims court for non payment of a bill. I won the case and defendant told to pay. If no payment was given I was told to come back to court.
Nothing happened, so back we went. No real questions to either party, judge says case dismissed no further action. Looks at me and says I cannot object or even ask any more about what has gone on.
A common occurrence? or have there been some back room handshakes going on.
Makes no sense to me - I've never heard of anything like it.
Regrettably "rights" and "remedies" do not always connect as well as we might like. Many famous people discover this when they are defamed (libel/slander) by mouthy fools with no money. More usually it's landlords who eventually manage to evict a tenant who's over-stayed their welcome and trashed the premises, walking away from hefty costs and obligations.
Litigation is like war. Easy to start, costly, and difficult to actually get a win.
Regrettably "rights" and "remedies" do not always connect as well as we might like. Many famous people discover this when they are defamed (libel/slander) by mouthy fools with no money. More usually it's landlords who eventually manage to evict a tenant who's over-stayed their welcome and trashed the premises, walking away from hefty costs and obligations.
Litigation is like war. Easy to start, costly, and difficult to actually get a win.
Firthv10 said:
Too long ago to put right, but I have always wondered.
Took someone to small claims court for non payment of a bill. I won the case and defendant told to pay. If no payment was given I was told to come back to court.
Nothing happened, so back we went. No real questions to either party, judge says case dismissed no further action. Looks at me and says I cannot object or even ask any more about what has gone on.
A common occurrence? or have there been some back room handshakes going on.
This doesn't make any sense.Took someone to small claims court for non payment of a bill. I won the case and defendant told to pay. If no payment was given I was told to come back to court.
Nothing happened, so back we went. No real questions to either party, judge says case dismissed no further action. Looks at me and says I cannot object or even ask any more about what has gone on.
A common occurrence? or have there been some back room handshakes going on.
If you got judgment it's up to you to enforce it if the defendant doesn't pay, but it doesn't involve a further hearing unless you're applying for a charging order or something similar. It's impossible for the judge to `dismiss' the case in these circumstances, as judgment has already been given.
So any chance we can have the correct version?
That is exactly what happened.
First time in court I won and defendant was told to pay. I was instructed to come back if defendant didnt pay.
No payment so returned to court, different judge. He went over the facts said no case to answer and that I couldnt ask any questions or appeal.
End of.
First time in court I won and defendant was told to pay. I was instructed to come back if defendant didnt pay.
No payment so returned to court, different judge. He went over the facts said no case to answer and that I couldnt ask any questions or appeal.
End of.
Firthv10 said:
That is exactly what happened.
First time in court I won and defendant was told to pay. I was instructed to come back if defendant didnt pay.
No payment so returned to court, different judge. He went over the facts said no case to answer and that I couldnt ask any questions or appeal.
End of.
It may be exactly as you misremember or misunderstood it, but that isn’t exactly what happened. First time in court I won and defendant was told to pay. I was instructed to come back if defendant didnt pay.
No payment so returned to court, different judge. He went over the facts said no case to answer and that I couldnt ask any questions or appeal.
End of.
Feel free to come back with an honest version of events.
Firthv10 said:
That is exactly what happened.
First time in court I won and defendant was told to pay. I was instructed to come back if defendant didnt pay.
No payment so returned to court, different judge. He went over the facts said no case to answer and that I couldnt ask any questions or appeal.
End of.
"The most obvious way in which individual judges are accountable is through the right of the party to the proceedings to appeal any judicial decision"First time in court I won and defendant was told to pay. I was instructed to come back if defendant didnt pay.
No payment so returned to court, different judge. He went over the facts said no case to answer and that I couldnt ask any questions or appeal.
End of.
https://www.judiciary.uk/about-the-judiciary/the-j...
So his statement that you have no right of appeal seems to be B.S
Thank you to all who have given this some thought.
The second time in court was for an enforcement. Whether it was that or I had filled the wrong papers in and tried the same case again ( as suggested above ). I still think I was stuffed by a back room handshake type of arrangement as they knew I had no representation and also knew ,quite rightly, that I wasnt really aware of court proceedings.
As to the un believers, you are entitled to your opinion. I know what happened, I was there.
The second time in court was for an enforcement. Whether it was that or I had filled the wrong papers in and tried the same case again ( as suggested above ). I still think I was stuffed by a back room handshake type of arrangement as they knew I had no representation and also knew ,quite rightly, that I wasnt really aware of court proceedings.
As to the un believers, you are entitled to your opinion. I know what happened, I was there.
Firthv10 said:
Thank you to all who have given this some thought.
The second time in court was for an enforcement. Whether it was that or I had filled the wrong papers in and tried the same case again ( as suggested above ). I still think I was stuffed by a back room handshake type of arrangement as they knew I had no representation and also knew ,quite rightly, that I wasnt really aware of court proceedings.
As to the un believers, you are entitled to your opinion. I know what happened, I was there.
Unfortunately, by your own admission, you don't. That's where the problem lies.The second time in court was for an enforcement. Whether it was that or I had filled the wrong papers in and tried the same case again ( as suggested above ). I still think I was stuffed by a back room handshake type of arrangement as they knew I had no representation and also knew ,quite rightly, that I wasnt really aware of court proceedings.
As to the un believers, you are entitled to your opinion. I know what happened, I was there.
Firstly, there was no “back room dealings”. There is no way a judge would risk there career and freedom over your little debt.
Secondly, you will have received details of the judgment in writing. This will explain exactly what happened.
Thirdly, most probably the debtor asked for the judgment to be set aside, you went back to court and lost. This will all be in writing in the judgment.
Secondly, you will have received details of the judgment in writing. This will explain exactly what happened.
Thirdly, most probably the debtor asked for the judgment to be set aside, you went back to court and lost. This will all be in writing in the judgment.
Firthv10 said:
Thank you to all who have given this some thought.
The second time in court was for an enforcement. Whether it was that or I had filled the wrong papers in and tried the same case again ( as suggested above ). I still think I was stuffed by a back room handshake type of arrangement as they knew I had no representation and also knew ,quite rightly, that I wasnt really aware of court proceedings.
As to the un believers, you are entitled to your opinion. I know what happened, I was there.
You don't have representation at a small claims court.The second time in court was for an enforcement. Whether it was that or I had filled the wrong papers in and tried the same case again ( as suggested above ). I still think I was stuffed by a back room handshake type of arrangement as they knew I had no representation and also knew ,quite rightly, that I wasnt really aware of court proceedings.
As to the un believers, you are entitled to your opinion. I know what happened, I was there.
Nothing you are saying makes any sense.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff